Ah. I assumed he meant semi-informed people as opposed to the clueless. In that case, Free Software is no better a term since it is "generally taken to mean" gratis as in no-charge. Hence the creation of "Open Source" which at least brought source code into the discussion.
In any case, without regard for what people mistake it to mean, Open Source has a meaning, as does Free Software. If you can't agree on a lexicon, then it doesn't matter what you are talking about. People can reinterpret it to their hearts content.
I do not think that that is what "Open Source" is generally taken to mean.
Well, yes, it is. That's why you will so frequently see people insist that "Free Software" is a better term.
Well, actually, no it's not. Go check the definition at OSI's page. (Really. Have a look. http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd) Open Source is more than mere availability of source code. There needs to be a grant of certain privileges to modify and distribute the code.
The difference between Open Source and Free Software tends to be more of a political or ideological nature. Generally both prefer to have software with licenses that would meet OSI's definition. The Free Software crowd tend to lean toward requiring software under such licenses or nothing at all. It's a Freedom Movement. The Open Source crowd tend to view code with Open Source license as superior due to the flexibility they allow. It's a pragmatic means to getting better software.
Reagan end the Cold war, a decades long conflict between two power who would likely end the world if they opened fire on one another. No Peace Prize. A parade of people get the Peace Prize for "bringing peace to the Middle East". (After all that trouble you'd think one would have left it there.) Now Obama get the Peace Prize effectively for showing up to work 8 months in a row.
I know people who have done less. I think they lean left if it's needed. I've got to let the committee know because their time must be soon if it isn't already upon us.
So, the problem is her Dad seeing her in Girls Gone Wild. Him watching videos of her on vimeo and You Tube are cool though? Or does she know he only looks for her in GGW videos? Perhaps she's not what he's actually looking for?
I did that and got ignored. The code I did to fix a security exposure was a bit waste of time. I now have my own work around so I don't run crossfire as root. The rest of Gentoo still doesn't.
This is true. I know a fellow who got a job selling cars, not based on his knowledge of cars, (though he is knowledgeable and was actually applying to be a mechanic) but based on his ability to perform a simple act requested by the interviewer. "Here, try to sell me this pen."
What countries did Iran use it's military to take over exactly?
You might not have picked up on it, but I think he was probably talking mainly about China there. Iocat has already mentioned a few of the nice things Iran is known for, but I think my favorite is that their President managed to both make a sceptical of himself denying the holocaust while promising to out-do the holocaust. Now that takes some imagination.
Yeah. It's kind of like having a bunch of mathematicians, physicists and electrical engineers who want to call themselves "Computer Scientists". Next you'll tell me some guy from that patent office could call himself a "Physicist" and find flaws in the age old scientific laws dating back to Newton.
This makes Ubuntu the first OS that doesn't need to be rebooted for security updates.
Sorry, but no. IBM has had that on iSeries (or what every they are calling it now) for a while. I think the mainframe also has online updates. In anycase, I once worked on the update code path for iSeries. We were able to patch it's 'kernel code' (being IBM we had to make up a different name for a kernel) at run time. There were very few things that could not be patched with an online fix.
All the same, I'm a linux bigot. If Gentoo would pick this up, I'd be able to go longer without a reboot. Now if only I could merge in a batch of updates without having to restart all my X apps.
They are both old. They are well published. There are no trade secrets left in C or UNIX and there have not been for decades. I don't believe the public knows what was in that agreement between Novell and Microsoft. Mono is fertile ground for another FAT or RAMBUS case. Maybe one day it will be safe, but for now, no Free system should risk becoming dependent on Mono.
Mono is not a safe, Free (FSF type free) implementation of C#. Is there such an implementation? If mono's all we really have at the moment, then the language itself is a trap.
Sure, you could maybe try to write or stabilize an implementation that is not a patent minefield. I'm guessing Richard isn't really pushing for that because there is already C, C++, Objective-C, Objective-C++, Java and he's really a Lisp bigot. He probably isn't fond of any of the OO C based languages and isn't look to have yet another.
That would only be true if GM had spent years telling everyone they should have their own tow truck to deal with the abysmal quality of GM cars and if GM's cars where actually so bad that that made enough sense to GM car owners that most of them did.
Calling something Malware may be a value judgement. But certification from Redmond is neither required not sufficient to make something not Malware.
My judgement tells me that if I was tricked into installing something I did not want or if the software has hidden function it does not claim to do or if it is installed behind my back, it's Malware. There is plently Microsoft software that fits that description on that enable other software to fit that description (Thanks for ClickOnce!) so I doubt a certification from Microsoft will really change that.
How is releasing anti-virus software fixing their "broken OS?"
I won't speak the the grandparent post, but to me it's not fixing their broken OS. Anti-virus is not a fix. It's a dodge. It's failure. It's surrender. But not a fix.
Are you implying that a non-broken OS is completely immune to viruses and malware or are you just spewing typical anti-Microsoft vitriol?
Again, speaking for myself, if the operating system is vulnerable to a virus or malware, it's broken and should be fixed. If it's vulnerable without user action, it's seriously broken. If a user adds the malware the it could be an irresponsible user's fault, but when things like ClickOnce are so common place, you can't honestly place blame on the user. The OS leaves the user defenceless.
Pretty much every OS is broken in this sense, but Microsoft has spent a long time demonstrating that some software can be (far more) broken than other software.
So, if it was an honest question, for me, the first one. Any vitriol, perceived or otherwise is just a symptom of a long established history of broken software.
Does it matter at all that Microsoft help create the market and even encouraged it for years? If Microsoft had encouraged people to buy you fixes to their flaws, then your fixes become "value add". At that point, are the fixes or add-ons/extensions? Does it become like Microsoft creating a market for third party browser plugins and then bundling replacements for all the most popular third party plugins?
The stick point here, at least for me is that Microsoft not only create the market for anti-virus software. They encouraged it use and even discourage running without it. Now they are using monopolistic techniques that could crater the market they've fostered.
I understand the desire to have Microsoft just fix their broken software. But this isn't a fix. It's just a duplication of someone else's third party work around. Secondly, they've actively turned their broken software into a market. They've made the complicated for themselves.
And you are ignoring the fact that Microsoft has earned this reputation. For decades Microsoft has had bad quality and as a result, bad security. Back when I was learning to code pattern matchers in my first year programming classes, I was able to write a better matcher than the one they continued to use in DOS at the time. In DOS the pattern "*a.txt" would match a file named "z.txt". (The splat gobbled up the whole name and declared success without caring about the 'a' in the pattern.) Granted, once they shipped it broken, it had to stay broken, but they were (already monopolistic) professionals and I was a wet nose who only thought he knew everything. That should not have been difficult or recourse intensive (which did matter back then) to get right.
They've had an occasional high point over the years, but that doesn't beat the overriding trend of their long history. Their security has improved some in recent years, but that bar wasn't too high to begin with. You don't just get a reputation like Microsoft's. You earn it.
No. But if they make a custom build tool/compiler that is required to be able to build a part of the code, they would have to release that as well. Releasing code in a non-buildable form is not sufficient to meet the terms of the GPL.
That is true. It could have been anyone's copyright being violated here. GPL just happens to be the one in this case and it harder to get GPL software relicensed if there isn't a requirement to have copyright signed over to a single organization that can then authorize the relicensing. Since the code has already been released, rewriting portions they cannot get permission for is not an option.
It can only apply to Nintendo if Nintendo was distributing the software in question. System libraries and system calls are not an issue. I hadn't though of what was required to be able to rebuild the source to be able to run on their closed platform. If you don't distribute the software, I don't believe there are any (other) strings attached.
I used to be a SOC Op and later on a student sysadmin in the CIS department in the mid-90s. They had a good program for computer science, but if they would have tried to put or require something on one of my personal systems, especially my Linux systems, to administer my systems I would have protested loudly. I understand the need to police Windows but that still does not excuse the exposure imposed on the students. It only takes one bored admin to decide to does something 'fun' with it. Unfortunately, there are some admins in universities who get that bored.
I do know there are (or were) a lot of good admins and student admins who have more of a conscience than many of the professions in industry about privacy. I know that most of them would only support this out of a pragmatic need to contain the problems on their network caused by Window's lack of security and the inability (and lack of interest) of most students and faculty to secure their systems. But the academic environment is also full of a lot of curious, bright minds who do not have the sense yet to know when to stop. When a student is caught running a MUD or pwcrack on a lab system just because he can, that a bad thing. What's likely to happen when they 'can' running something on people's home computers.
Also, the slippery slope of the school policing the students computers gets a lot steeper once the school has something running on everyone's computer. It gets a lot easier for the RIAA, MPAA or whoever else to ask the University to scan computers for illegal activity and things that 'should not be there'. If the University is already scanning for viruses, why not uses the same infrastructure to scan for other things that should not be on those computers? It may not be what the computer staff are after, but once the foot is in the door it's hard to believe that others won't demand to use it.
The Board of Trustees does not get access to my person computer until I get access to theirs. The students are paying them, not the other way around.
The closest they come to Linux is typing it and occasionally putting in the Ubuntu LiveCD so they can play LinCity or Same and be able to say they use Linux.
Amen Brother! I only keep a Linux disk around for its games. If it weren't for them I'd dump Linux all together and stick with windows!
but this was the operating system subverting the security of an application.
By using a documented API designed for silent installs?
By using the API to install something as terribly insecure as ClickOnce. I don't mind if a sysadmin chooses to silently install something across the corporation. I don't want my OS vendor to sneak one in on my systems with an unrelated update. Firefox is not.Net.
My point about the OS subverting an app is that the OS can alter anything it chooses. Nothing Firefox could do would protect it if the OS what's to make a change behind it's back. They could make it harder for the OS, but it's a failing strategy, just like DRM. Why try?
Slashdot Mirror
Ah. I assumed he meant semi-informed people as opposed to the clueless. In that case, Free Software is no better a term since it is "generally taken to mean" gratis as in no-charge. Hence the creation of "Open Source" which at least brought source code into the discussion.
In any case, without regard for what people mistake it to mean, Open Source has a meaning, as does Free Software. If you can't agree on a lexicon, then it doesn't matter what you are talking about. People can reinterpret it to their hearts content.
I do not think that that is what "Open Source" is generally taken to mean.
Well, yes, it is. That's why you will so frequently see people insist that "Free Software" is a better term.
Well, actually, no it's not. Go check the definition at OSI's page. (Really. Have a look. http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd) Open Source is more than mere availability of source code. There needs to be a grant of certain privileges to modify and distribute the code.
The difference between Open Source and Free Software tends to be more of a political or ideological nature. Generally both prefer to have software with licenses that would meet OSI's definition. The Free Software crowd tend to lean toward requiring software under such licenses or nothing at all. It's a Freedom Movement. The Open Source crowd tend to view code with Open Source license as superior due to the flexibility they allow. It's a pragmatic means to getting better software.
Reagan end the Cold war, a decades long conflict between two power who would likely end the world if they opened fire on one another. No Peace Prize. A parade of people get the Peace Prize for "bringing peace to the Middle East". (After all that trouble you'd think one would have left it there.) Now Obama get the Peace Prize effectively for showing up to work 8 months in a row.
I know people who have done less. I think they lean left if it's needed. I've got to let the committee know because their time must be soon if it isn't already upon us.
So, the problem is her Dad seeing her in Girls Gone Wild. Him watching videos of her on vimeo and You Tube are cool though? Or does she know he only looks for her in GGW videos? Perhaps she's not what he's actually looking for?
Perhaps he isn't personal terms with Corynne or Benito?
I did that and got ignored. The code I did to fix a security exposure was a bit waste of time. I now have my own work around so I don't run crossfire as root. The rest of Gentoo still doesn't.
This is true. I know a fellow who got a job selling cars, not based on his knowledge of cars, (though he is knowledgeable and was actually applying to be a mechanic) but based on his ability to perform a simple act requested by the interviewer. "Here, try to sell me this pen."
So it's got the plumbing of a Gazelle? That's not exactly appealing.
What countries did Iran use it's military to take over exactly?
You might not have picked up on it, but I think he was probably talking mainly about China there. Iocat has already mentioned a few of the nice things Iran is known for, but I think my favorite is that their President managed to both make a sceptical of himself denying the holocaust while promising to out-do the holocaust. Now that takes some imagination.
Yeah. It's kind of like having a bunch of mathematicians, physicists and electrical engineers who want to call themselves "Computer Scientists". Next you'll tell me some guy from that patent office could call himself a "Physicist" and find flaws in the age old scientific laws dating back to Newton.
This makes Ubuntu the first OS that doesn't need to be rebooted for security updates.
Sorry, but no. IBM has had that on iSeries (or what every they are calling it now) for a while. I think the mainframe also has online updates. In anycase, I once worked on the update code path for iSeries. We were able to patch it's 'kernel code' (being IBM we had to make up a different name for a kernel) at run time. There were very few things that could not be patched with an online fix.
All the same, I'm a linux bigot. If Gentoo would pick this up, I'd be able to go longer without a reboot. Now if only I could merge in a batch of updates without having to restart all my X apps.
They are both old. They are well published. There are no trade secrets left in C or UNIX and there have not been for decades. I don't believe the public knows what was in that agreement between Novell and Microsoft. Mono is fertile ground for another FAT or RAMBUS case. Maybe one day it will be safe, but for now, no Free system should risk becoming dependent on Mono.
Sure, you could maybe try to write or stabilize an implementation that is not a patent minefield. I'm guessing Richard isn't really pushing for that because there is already C, C++, Objective-C, Objective-C++, Java and he's really a Lisp bigot. He probably isn't fond of any of the OO C based languages and isn't look to have yet another.
That would only be true if GM had spent years telling everyone they should have their own tow truck to deal with the abysmal quality of GM cars and if GM's cars where actually so bad that that made enough sense to GM car owners that most of them did.
But seriously, congrats on using the car analogy!
Calling something Malware may be a value judgement. But certification from Redmond is neither required not sufficient to make something not Malware.
My judgement tells me that if I was tricked into installing something I did not want or if the software has hidden function it does not claim to do or if it is installed behind my back, it's Malware. There is plently Microsoft software that fits that description on that enable other software to fit that description (Thanks for ClickOnce!) so I doubt a certification from Microsoft will really change that.
How is releasing anti-virus software fixing their "broken OS?"
I won't speak the the grandparent post, but to me it's not fixing their broken OS. Anti-virus is not a fix. It's a dodge. It's failure. It's surrender. But not a fix.
Are you implying that a non-broken OS is completely immune to viruses and malware or are you just spewing typical anti-Microsoft vitriol?
Again, speaking for myself, if the operating system is vulnerable to a virus or malware, it's broken and should be fixed. If it's vulnerable without user action, it's seriously broken. If a user adds the malware the it could be an irresponsible user's fault, but when things like ClickOnce are so common place, you can't honestly place blame on the user. The OS leaves the user defenceless.
Pretty much every OS is broken in this sense, but Microsoft has spent a long time demonstrating that some software can be (far more) broken than other software.
So, if it was an honest question, for me, the first one. Any vitriol, perceived or otherwise is just a symptom of a long established history of broken software.
The stick point here, at least for me is that Microsoft not only create the market for anti-virus software. They encouraged it use and even discourage running without it. Now they are using monopolistic techniques that could crater the market they've fostered.
I understand the desire to have Microsoft just fix their broken software. But this isn't a fix. It's just a duplication of someone else's third party work around. Secondly, they've actively turned their broken software into a market. They've made the complicated for themselves.
They've had an occasional high point over the years, but that doesn't beat the overriding trend of their long history. Their security has improved some in recent years, but that bar wasn't too high to begin with. You don't just get a reputation like Microsoft's. You earn it.
No. But if they make a custom build tool/compiler that is required to be able to build a part of the code, they would have to release that as well. Releasing code in a non-buildable form is not sufficient to meet the terms of the GPL.
That is true. It could have been anyone's copyright being violated here. GPL just happens to be the one in this case and it harder to get GPL software relicensed if there isn't a requirement to have copyright signed over to a single organization that can then authorize the relicensing. Since the code has already been released, rewriting portions they cannot get permission for is not an option.
It can only apply to Nintendo if Nintendo was distributing the software in question. System libraries and system calls are not an issue. I hadn't though of what was required to be able to rebuild the source to be able to run on their closed platform. If you don't distribute the software, I don't believe there are any (other) strings attached.
A number of lispers still direct people to their usenet groups.
I used to be a SOC Op and later on a student sysadmin in the CIS department in the mid-90s. They had a good program for computer science, but if they would have tried to put or require something on one of my personal systems, especially my Linux systems, to administer my systems I would have protested loudly. I understand the need to police Windows but that still does not excuse the exposure imposed on the students. It only takes one bored admin to decide to does something 'fun' with it. Unfortunately, there are some admins in universities who get that bored.
I do know there are (or were) a lot of good admins and student admins who have more of a conscience than many of the professions in industry about privacy. I know that most of them would only support this out of a pragmatic need to contain the problems on their network caused by Window's lack of security and the inability (and lack of interest) of most students and faculty to secure their systems. But the academic environment is also full of a lot of curious, bright minds who do not have the sense yet to know when to stop. When a student is caught running a MUD or pwcrack on a lab system just because he can, that a bad thing. What's likely to happen when they 'can' running something on people's home computers.
Also, the slippery slope of the school policing the students computers gets a lot steeper once the school has something running on everyone's computer. It gets a lot easier for the RIAA, MPAA or whoever else to ask the University to scan computers for illegal activity and things that 'should not be there'. If the University is already scanning for viruses, why not uses the same infrastructure to scan for other things that should not be on those computers? It may not be what the computer staff are after, but once the foot is in the door it's hard to believe that others won't demand to use it.
The Board of Trustees does not get access to my person computer until I get access to theirs. The students are paying them, not the other way around.
The closest they come to Linux is typing it and occasionally putting in the Ubuntu LiveCD so they can play LinCity or Same and be able to say they use Linux.
Amen Brother! I only keep a Linux disk around for its games. If it weren't for them I'd dump Linux all together and stick with windows!
but this was the operating system subverting the security of an application.
By using a documented API designed for silent installs?
By using the API to install something as terribly insecure as ClickOnce. I don't mind if a sysadmin chooses to silently install something across the corporation. I don't want my OS vendor to sneak one in on my systems with an unrelated update. Firefox is not .Net.
My point about the OS subverting an app is that the OS can alter anything it chooses. Nothing Firefox could do would protect it if the OS what's to make a change behind it's back. They could make it harder for the OS, but it's a failing strategy, just like DRM. Why try?